PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Damocles said:
And you weighed up the evidence? Can you explain what you believe the energy levels of higher dimensional spacetime are please? What's your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of abiogenesis from the conclusions of Miller-Urey? What's the key to the logarithmic sized gaps between the SM and Planck sizes? Doesn't that seem incomplete to you?
Click to expand...
Eh???? :-)
 
Damocles said:
You're conflating religious feelings (i.e. spirituality) with religious dogma (i.e. beliefs). Only the first bit is biological.



No, the idea wasn't to point to gaps in scientific knowledge, it was point out that when someone says "well I've weighed up the evidence", usually when they ask them they seem to have very little idea of the complexities.



And that's wrong which is sort of my point. The Earth is a minimum age of 4.49 billion years which is a different thing. Not only is there a margin of error, but generally when scientists date things they're pretty careful in stating that's the new minimum rather than exact. Because tomorrow if they find a 4.8 billion year old rock then that becomes the new minimum.

My overall point here isn't about ages of the Earth, it's about the complete dismissal of what has been a major part of life for almost every human being who has ever lived because they misunderstand what the Big Bang says or whatever. Or they target one religion and interpretation of it like saying "well it wasn't made in 6 days therefore..." and dismissing the entire notion of spiritual thought based on it. It's close minded at best.

And ultimately, proclaiming yourself as "knowing" that everybody else's beliefs are completely fake and invented and you KNOW the truth makes you sound a ****.
Click to expand...
The formation of the Earth is generally given as 4.567 BA as this is the age when solids in the solar nebula began to form, clearly the Earth accreted over time including the formation of a 'veneer' of material possibly including the Earth's water from the bombardment of volatile-rich material from the outer solar system.

Edit: The study of meteorites and the sub-structures within them (Chondrules and CAIS) converge on certain ages so the sample system science is quite clear on this.

You have not described what you mean by spiritual thought. Many scientists study nature and write poetry and have feelings of great awe at the natural world, but that is not a religious feeling. I can love my Mother and yet know that her to be some many atoms and molecules organised by an evolving genetic code. I find that more wondrous than some arcane religious text of nonsense.

Your closing comment was unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
You're conflating religious feelings (i.e. spirituality) with religious dogma (i.e. beliefs). Only the first bit is biological.



No, the idea wasn't to point to gaps in scientific knowledge, it was point out that when someone says "well I've weighed up the evidence", usually when they ask them they seem to have very little idea of the complexities.



And that's wrong which is sort of my point. The Earth is a minimum age of 4.49 billion years which is a different thing. Not only is there a margin of error, but generally when scientists date things they're pretty careful in stating that's the new minimum rather than exact. Because tomorrow if they find a 4.8 billion year old rock then that becomes the new minimum.

My overall point here isn't about ages of the Earth, it's about the complete dismissal of what has been a major part of life for almost every human being who has ever lived because they misunderstand what the Big Bang says or whatever. Or they target one religion and interpretation of it like saying "well it wasn't made in 6 days therefore..." and dismissing the entire notion of spiritual thought based on it. It's close minded at best.

And ultimately, proclaiming yourself as "knowing" that everybody else's beliefs are completely fake and invented and you KNOW the truth makes you sound a ****.
Click to expand...
saloon-enter.gif
 
No news is good news as they say?

The rags need investigated for that article alone!

If you ever wobble about city and 115 then look no further than that times article. The whole concept of financial regulations and how the league implements those regulations is farcical and completely dishonest.

It makes coming after city nothing but a sham PR exercise. I hope we have broken every stupid rule and I hope we get away with it due to having the most expensive legal team in the history of the world -:)
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
A club that is over a billion in debt and is doing nothing to pay it down, that is sacking its staff and is burning through its operating cash. They are then seemingly allowed to outlay £100 plus in this window on Cunha and the chap from Brentford. It’s dodgy as fuck how they don’t face any sanctions when their chums at the PL have been desperately obsessing over how much Mancini got paid back in 2009.
Click to expand...
Other clubs have been hammered because they have to pay interest on their debts. What a disgrace
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Other clubs have been hammered because they have to pay interest on their debts. What a disgrace
Click to expand...

The rags pay the interest but with the cost of money being volatile over the last few years it’s killing them. They haven’t survived on interest free director loans which have been deemed illegal which the Dippers and Arsenal have, not a chance the Glazers would put their hands in their pockets and give the club free cash.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
A club that is over a billion in debt and is doing nothing to pay it down, that is sacking its staff and is burning through its operating cash. They are then seemingly allowed to outlay £100 plus in this window on Cunha and the chap from Brentford. It’s dodgy as fuck how they don’t face any sanctions when their chums at the PL have been desperately obsessing over how much Mancini got paid back in 2009.
Click to expand...
Fair play to Maguire, the Athletic, the NY Times etc for publishing this but why leave it at that? They don't ask questions as to whether submitting a UK financial report that omits certain costs to the football business is in compliance with the existing rules and whether it is fair and reasonable.

If I were a rival club who was selling players to comply with PSR e.g., Villa in selling Dhuran, I would not be happy with this state of affairs. The regulatory process surrounding PSR is in disrepute. Everyone knows what Chelsea have done. And yet they pursue City until the ends of the Earth.
 
Marvin. said:
The reason why Man Utd have not breached the Premier League's PSR requirement (£105m loss over 3 years) despite published losses of £330m over 3 years is now apparent (https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6402367/2025/06/05/manchester-united-psr-red-football-limited/).

Utd's PSR accounting is based on their UK subsidiary Red Football Ltd which crucially does not include their takeover costs and full finance costs relating to the Glazer debt pile. Red Football's loss in 2023-24 was £36m, £95m less than their plc based in the Cayman Islands.

I feel that this breaks the spirit of the PSR rules if not the rules because the PSR test should surely reflect the entire costs of running the football club and Man Utd are not doing that. The Premier League and the BBC and the Football media know this. They make no comment on this. I regard this as farcical. I wonder what fans of clubs like Everton, Forest and Manchester City think about this.

Does anyone else find this highly questionable? How can the Premier League accept a set of accounts that do not entirely reflect the football-related activity of Man Utd?
Click to expand...
Surely if its that simple to circumvent the PSR rules, by having a subsidiary company witn seperate accounts, then all clubs, ourselves included, would be doing the same?
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
The rags pay the interest but with the cost of money being volatile over the last few years it’s killing them. They haven’t survived on interest free director loans which have been deemed illegal which the Dippers and Arsenal have, not a chance the Glazers would put their hands in their pockets and give the club free cash.
Click to expand...
They are paying the finance costs but Utd's PSR calculation does not include them so they can buy players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top